Subject: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-record-limit

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:19:25 -0500

Hello,

Thanks for your work on draft-ietf-tls-record-limit.  I just requested
IETF last call, so that should start soon.  The draft looks ready to
go, I'm just wondering if you could add in text into the introduction
to state the level of constrained device this is intended to help?

If text is added, this can be addressed with an updated document after
all other IETF last call comments are addressed.  I placed the
document on the March 8th telechat.

Thank you.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:09:15 +1100

I don't think that this targets a particular class of device, or that
it is appropriate to label it as such.  Ideally, every implementation
deploys this.  If the RFC cites 7228 and points at C1 (for example),
that potentially gives the impression that it is *only* for those
things.  That's not the intent.  The intent is to avoid further
fragmentation of the ecosystem.

That's just my prejudice though, I don't find these taxonomies to be
especially helpful, other than in codifying design constraints.  For
this, I'd prefer the design constraint to be simply "could it run
TLS".

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:52:27 -0500

Hi Martin,

Thanks for your response.  I just wanted to check on this and not hold
up the draft in the process.  Thanks for also addressing Jim's
question.

Best regards,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen